From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5
X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku)
Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
Date: 1996/04/10
Message-ID: <4kgn40INN7g3@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146763582
references: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.829096975@schonberg>
 <4kf8k1INN68b@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <dewar.829136049@schonberg>
organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
Date: 1996-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.829136049@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
 >Kazimir said
 >
 >"BTW, I checked the Ada POSIX standard too, but that reads like a VCR manual
 >from 1984.  ;)  heh"
 >
 >Actually, the Ada spec for the corresponding function is absolutely clear.
 >This is because the strong typing of Ada leaves no doubt as to the 
 >semantics of exceeding the buffer size, and the called routine knows
 >the length of the buffer.

It does! I was just kidding to be a pest! :)

Do you think that the extra detail in the corresponding Ada function has any
influence on how the ambiguities in the C function ought to be resolved?
--